"Undermining my electoral viability since 2001."

Outlandish Josh

Published on Mon, 2006-11-20 15:26

LAPD Taze UCLA Student in Library

This shouldn't happen:

At around 11:30 p.m., CSOs asked a male student using a computer in the back of the room to leave when he was unable to produce a BruinCard during a random check. The student did not exit the building immediately.

The CSOs left, returning minutes later, and police officers arrived to escort the student out. By this time the student had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack when an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, at which point the student told the officer to let him go. A second officer then approached the student as well.

The student began to yell "get off me," repeating himself several times.

It was at this point that the officers shot the student with a Taser for the first time, causing him to fall to the floor and cry out in pain. The student also told the officers he had a medical condition.

Of course this being the 21st century, someone had a cellphone with a camera. It's kinda ugly to watch:

The student clearly has some issues with authority, but this is completely unacceptable behavior by the cops. It's also fucked up that there are "random ID checks" at the UCLA library, which is what triggered the whole incident in the first place.

Responses

Tue, 2006-11-21 13:09 — John Y

I know this may be a bit naive, but I think it's clear it's time for the FBI to take over the LAPD until a re-organization can occur. This is what, the third instance of an abuse of power to come to light in the last 2 weeks. All instances, though the assaulted may have resisted originally, were documented on film after the person had been apprehended and restrained. They taze him at least twice after he's in handcuffs(I couldn't watch the whole thing), is not that tant-a-mount to beating a cuffed individual(which is definitely illegal and an abuse of power). He's not resisting, he's just not standing up, that's what used to be called non-violent confrontation. And the last time I checked, force was solely supposed to be used for the imminent threat of officers or civilians(I know this isn't a practical reality, but still). He's just sitting there, handcuffed no less. We won't even get into the fact that it's a clear civil rights violation that they ignore his declaration that he has a medical condition. Then of course they just end up carrying him out anyway, which is what they could have done originally without tazing him. The LAPD clearly has an institutional issue with over-reactionary measures and inappropriate use of force. The one thing that warms my heart is how involved the other students get. Of course, the video ends with more fascist tactics, "get upstairs"- "why"- "because I said so." Damn. I guess that's what you get when orange county residents police LA.

Tue, 2006-11-21 13:14 — John Y

Ok, my bad, I guess it was UCPD, not LAPD. Are they connected, one in the same? Either way, I believe Tasers and other supposedly "non-lethal" forms of force need to be re-evaluated. I think officers take it as license to use force when good old being a peace officer and training are sufficient.

Tue, 2006-11-21 14:27 — Nick Rusnov

I saw this video last week, and I was pretty enraged by it, particularly by the passive bystanders... when the kid started screaming horribly, I dunno, It just got my blood up.

Also, don't these cops get ANY training? A tazer is for incpacitating somebody, not making them comply with your orders by causing pain. This is torture, plain and simple: tazering somebody is the OPPOSITE of getting them to walk with you.

Tue, 2006-11-21 14:30 — zazie

UCPD is UCLA's campus police. So you know, more and more campus police are carrying tasers. This has become a hot topic at colleges.

Tue, 2006-11-21 18:07 — Jeremy

I had the inclination to try to come up with some equivalence for this, just because I couldn't see what he was really doing before he got the taser. But, this is clearly overboard.

Whether or not he should have had his ID on him, and whether or not he was just being an asshole, he didn't deserve to get tased.

Of course, it's also come to attention (over on Crooks & Liars), that the officer who tased him was kicked out of the LAPD for similar infractions and has a history of this sort of thing.

Fire the guy and offer the kid an awesome settlement.

Tue, 2006-11-21 21:31 — Sam Tresler

A few things...
First, John has a point that I agree with completely, why didn't they just pick him up and walk him out?

I went through high school living with my sister, who was a campus cop at Millersvile University. Each university has a different set up with a different set of rules and different relationships with the local police braches. This is a huge issue.

Ever since the rioting on campuses against the VietNam war each campus has tried to carefully structure their rules to avoid a lot f the stupidity that went on with authority clashes in that era. Some have succeeded and some haven't.

Usually, campus cops need to invite local forces onto the campus, otherwise local forces cannot come onto the campus. However, I don't know the scenario with this being a state school.

Furthermore, the taser/mace/billy club/gun issue is and has been hotly debated for years. Its easy to regulate the training a state employed police officer must recieve (comparatively), but what official is in charge of mandating training for campus cops? It varies per college.

Therein lies a real snarl. Usually the administration of a college starts by being uber-paranoid about just such incidents as this and try to completely underarm their security - not investing in training programs and supporting students in virtually all confrontations, in an effort to avoid any sort of public scandal. This quickly results in a completely ineffectual force, as well as gets the campus cops lobbying for ways to defend themselves as them getting injured is fairly frequent when they are sent into dangerous situations.

Then the administration grudgingly grants a 'non-lethal' weapon for use by the campus cops - nightsticks, mace, tasers - but doesn't want to pay for the proper training for fear of headlines like 'University training cops to disable student body' - which any good pr dept. could bunk in a second, but this is a university we're talking about, public image is god.

Then there is an incident or two - usually milder than the above, but of a similar nature.

About then the university administration changes and it all starts over with a 'new take on campus security' All the people who are finally figuring out why this whole situation sucks are canned (I'm talking about the ones not in this video). And new ones brought in.

Add to all this that the campus cops are frequently people who didn't make it into the local forces, or were removed from the local forces for good reason.... and you see the cycle.

What we see above is astonishing. And probably not all that uncommon, it just normally doesn't get caught on video (although as JK points out, that is changing with camera phones), but you can almost count on the university settling quickly, out of court, and appeasing anyone who needs to be appeased.

Part of getting through high school living with two cops was learning the ins and outs of police politics. Campus cops usually have a poorly defined job description with strict rules against certain types of force, but not others.

Anyway... yeah, that was the wrong way to handle that situation.

Wed, 2006-11-22 03:27 — Outlandish Josh

I have to agree with Nick, in that the thing I was most struck by was not what the cops did, but what the crowd didn't. I've seen cops beat people before, but there was always a bit more of a response. In this case, the students actually greatly outnumbered the police. I'm not saying that this should have provoked a riot, but I think I may have felt better about the incident if it did. The passivity of the observation was downright creepy.

Also, as my friend The Girth, ESQ. pointed out, real police do much worse than that (though not usually to college students) pretty regularly, like mace someone up, not let them wash it off, and stick them in an unventalated holding cell. Overnight.

More people need cameraphones.

Wed, 2006-11-22 11:29 — John Y

While I understand your worry over the student reaction, let's be a bit practical. They just watched these officers clearly over-react and use unwarranted force, so what are they supposed to do, physically intervene? The officers(are at least carrying tasers, possibly firearms but you can't tell from the video-at BU they carried guns too) clearly have no compunction about hurting poeple and even threaten force towards bystanders in the video. They witness it, demand badge numbers, and call for the officers to stop. Legally, isn't that all they can do?

Wed, 2006-11-22 15:41 — Outlandish Josh

You're right of course. "What was I supposed to do? They were cops!" is the likely response. Escalating this to a physical conflict would probably not have been productive. However, if you watch until the end there are 40 or 50 kids watching 2 cops. The kids would have won, not that this would have been a Good Thing, but...

I think what I find purturbing is the passivity of the observation. These kids are spectating. Like, I think at least a few of them should have been screaming bloody fucking murder, calling 911, running off to get a more sane authority figure; taking a stand or action of some sort. I would feel better about this if someone had tried to physically intervene.

I mean, at some point that becomes a moral imperative, doesn't it? Legally you're not supposed to interfere with police work, I know, but what if they were beating the kid half to death? W

What if they were (goodwins law, I know) loading people on to boxcars. The students seem too much like "good little Germans" for my taste. Though clearly that's an overblown analogy, it does make me wonder what it would take to get more of a reaction. Most likely, anyone who witnessed this would react differently if there's a "next time." Hopefully there will be meetings, etc, to talk about "what to do" in this situation should it arise again.

The meta point is that I think the balance of power in a free society demands that citizens intervene (sometimes even physically) to counteract the actions of authority figures. I don't think people are taught to think this way though, part of a generalized socialization towards passivity and consumption that we all undergo.

Sat, 2006-11-25 02:18 — Sam Tresler

Generally drunk and in various stages of our lives, but we have discussed this. Whether on a tiny small scale or a huge scale; intervening with the authorities and using force is a type of rebellion. In this case, I can't disagree with you more.

Maybe it is the strategist and tacticain in me, and I doubt it was present for these kids, but to what end. ANY physical resistance to those two police officers would have ended poorly and THERE IS NO WAY THE COULD HAVE POSSIBLY WON I don't know what line of reasoning led you to claim that they could, but when two officers are overwhelmed by 50 - the precinct DOES NOT look the other way. Not to mention, I didn't see one of those 50 students with a sidearm - I don't know that the two in question had them, but their backup would have - or their backup would have been the local law enforcement officials.

Best case, they would have gotten themselves arrested, worst case, killed.

Comparing them to 'Good little Germans' is wrong. You can claim you've been in similar situations - but even if you discount that claim with a 'Though clearly that’s an overblown analogy,' it has still been stated.

There comes a time when people just don't know what to do. Whether that is because of their upbringing or society is up for question, but claiming they are complicit in this is event is tough.

People get the government they deserve. Kids not rebelling because they see cops abusing someone is the wrong place to draw the line.

You're right it would be interesting to see what it would take to make people these days stand up against the government. There are many issues I would back a good reactionary movement on. But you can't blame people for not standing up for a cause when it might very well be their first introduction to 'the real world'.

Sat, 2006-11-25 12:46 — Outlandish Josh

When I say "they would have won," I mean they could have easily overwhelmed the two officers physically. It would have escalated into a small riot, but I don't know that that's a worse outcome. It would certainly prompt a deeper reflection.

They could also have physically prevented the cops from leaving the library with the student, or from repeatedly tasing him (e.g. by grabbing ahold of the students legs) without becoming violently confrontational. This is the essence of passive resistance. You react to injustice by putting yourself into the situation and magnifying the scale of what's being done by authorities to the point where they cannot continue the unjust policy.

I'm not suggesting the onlookers are sheep, and I would hope that this experience would prompt them to react differently should there be a "next time," but the passivity in the moment reflects a level of submission to authority which I suspect is shared by a great many upwardly mobile young people, and that I think is a questionable trait.

Sun, 2006-11-26 23:25 — Sam Tresler

the passivity in the moment reflects a level of submission to authority which I suspect is shared by a great many upwardly mobile young people, and that I think is a questionable trait.

Completely agreed. And I might call them sheep, but not until I saw more than this video.

Pages

Old Stuff

Pages